Donald Trump’s media summit was a ‘f−−−ing firing squad’

[LaserSharkDFB]

So you have facts.... but mine is wishful thinking.... but then you say I'm right and we can't know for sure....

I guess we're done here...

Yeah, we are, because I see no point in having a discussion with someone who lacks basic reading comprehension.

[anyaka21]

Yeah, we are, because I see no point in having a discussion with someone who lacks basic reading comprehension.

Considering you are saying that you don't know what you can't know because we can't know is somehow based on facts, but my "I don't know what we can't know is somehow "pure speculation" seems more like someone that lacks basic comprehension.

[LaserSharkDFB]

Considering you are saying that you don't know what you can't know because we can't know is somehow based on facts, but my "I don't know what we can't know is somehow "pure speculation" seems more like someone that lacks basic comprehension.

...oh my god, you're broken.

Okay. Look.

Two possibilities exist: a popular election would have ended better for Trump (call it Trump-Positive), or worse for Trump (Trump-Negative). Or exactly equal, but let's ignore that possibility as unreasonably unlikely.

You're trying to say that both possibilities are equally likely, and so it's pointless to speculate.

I am trying to say that both possibilities are not equally likely, and in fact that a Trump-Positive outcome is far less likely than a Trump-Negative outcome. I have never said that Trump-Negative is a certain outcome, but it's definitely the much more probable result. I have cited facts and past trends, as well as reasoning as to how a popular campaign would compare to an EC campaign, to explain my point of view.

If you want to dispute my facts or reasoning, sure, give me your counterargument and we can go from there. But you're not even doing that. It's not 'pure speculation' when it's a situation for which we have known facts and for which only a limited number of parameters can change.

Guessing the outcome of a roll of a die is pure speculation; predicting the outcome of an election that would be weighted against a candidate that had already 'lost' using the same metric (popular votes, that is) is logic.

[anyaka21]

...oh my god, you're broken.

Okay. Look.

Two possibilities exist: a popular election would have ended better for Trump (call it Trump-Positive), or worse for Trump (Trump-Negative). Or exactly equal, but let's ignore that possibility as unreasonably unlikely.

You're trying to say that both possibilities are equally likely, and so it's pointless to speculate.

I am trying to say that both possibilities are not equally likely, and in fact that a Trump-Positive outcome is far less likely than a Trump-Negative outcome. I have never said that Trump-Negative is a certain outcome, but it's definitely the much more probable result. I have cited facts and past trends, as well as reasoning as to how a popular campaign would compare to an EC campaign, to explain my point of view.

If you want to dispute my facts or reasoning, sure, give me your counterargument and we can go from there. But you're not even doing that. It's not 'pure speculation' when it's a situation for which we have known facts and for which only a limited number of parameters can change.

Guessing the outcome of a roll of a die is pure speculation; predicting the outcome of an election that would be weighted against a candidate that had already 'lost' using the same metric (popular votes, that is) is logic.

First, I have never said that both possibilities are equally likely. That's you and your own preconceived notion. Further, you are dismissing out of hand the likelihood of Trump winning a pop vote election.

I understand your point. But even you admit there is no way to know. Going back to the football analogy, Clinton won the yards game, but lost in points. Its just that simple. But to say she would have won is pure fallacy, because you have to play a different game entirely. We can't know who would have won because the game would have been played completely differently. Hell, one could argue that while Clinton had more hits in the World Series in one game but lost the game. The new game is football. Thus not equatable to a baseball game.

You use the result of this elections data as your proof. But it is at best incomplete, at worst completely misleading. Why? Because of how an election would be run would be entirely different. How they campaigned, where they campaigned, what states they pushed the hardest in, what states they ignored. Basically what I'm saying is using the pop vote count from this election is flawed logic because, as said, it's a completely different game.


To the mods, we are going around in circles. And we have strayed far from where this thread was originally intended. It might be best to just shut it down.

[LaserSharkDFB]

First, I have never said that both possibilities are equally likely. That's you and your own preconceived notion. Further, you are dismissing out of hand the likelihood of Trump winning a pop vote election.

I understand your point. But even you admit there is no way to know. Going back to the football analogy, Clinton won the yards game, but lost in points. Its just that simple. But to say she would have won is pure fallacy, because you have to play a different game entirely. We can't know who would have won because the game would have been played completely differently. Hell, one could argue that while Clinton had more hits in the World Series in one game but lost the game. The new game is football. Thus not equatable to a baseball game.

You use the result of this elections data as your proof. But it is at best incomplete, at worst completely misleading. Why? Because of how an election would be run would be entirely different. How they campaigned, where they campaigned, what states they pushed the hardest in, what states they ignored. Basically what I'm saying is using the pop vote count from this election is flawed logic because, as said, it's a completely different game.


To the mods, we are going around in circles. And we have strayed far from where this thread was originally intended. It might be best to just shut it down.

And thus we're back to you not actually understanding a single thing I wrote, so yeah, we're done.

[Deleted]

Fedor just tweeted


If Fedor likes him, I'll give him a chance.

[NickCageFanatic]

Again, wrong line of reasoning. Trump didn't win the popular vote. Those leftists did vote for Hillary by over 2 million more than the none-leftists (?) that voted for Trump.

You're point? The media never gave any sort of quality reporting on Sanders. What about Ron Paul back in '08 and in '12? He was easily the best Republican candidate by far and yet it all comes down to who gets into the media spotlight.

You're left wing establishment is what got Hillary the nomination too, so don't act all high and mighty here. I'm not a Trump guy myself but I see BS when it's in plain sight he is full of it and so is Hillary. Both would [and will] make terrible presidents.